The effect of providing prescribing recommendations on appropriate prescribing: A cluster-randomized controlled trial in older adults in a preoperative setting

Deprescribing Interventions for Older Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Deprescribing reduces polypharmacy in older adults. A thorough study of the effect of deprescribing interventions on clinical outcomes in older adults is presently lacking. As a result, we evaluated the impact of deprescribing on clinical outcomes in older patients.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from the time of creation to March 2023.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized controlled trial with participants at least 60 years old.

MEASURES

Mortality, falls (number of fallers), hospitalization rates, emergency department visits, medication adherence, HRQoL (health-regulated quality of life), incidence of ADR (adverse drug reactions), PIM (potentially inappropriate medication), and PPO (potentially prescription omission) were evaluated in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 32 RCTs (18,670 patients) were included. Deprescribing interventions significantly reduced proportions of older adults with PIM, PPO, and the incidence of ADRs. The interventions group also improved medication compliance.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Compared to routine care, deprescribing interventions significantly improve clinical outcome indicators for older adults.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, so that many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. This is the third update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions, alone or in combination, in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 13 January 2021, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. We ran updated searches in February 2023 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For this update, we included randomised trials only. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy (four or more medicines) in people aged 65 years and older, which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, and two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 38 studies, which includes an additional 10 in this update. The included studies consisted of 24 randomised trials and 14 cluster-randomised trials. Thirty-six studies examined complex, multi-faceted interventions of pharmaceutical care (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patients' outcomes), in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists, nurses and geriatricians, and most were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low. It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool) (mean difference (MD) -5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.26 to -2.06; I2 = 97%; 8 studies, 947 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.05; I2 = 67%; 9 studies, 2404 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIM (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; I2 = 84%; 13 studies, 4534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.09; I2 = 92%; 3 studies, 691 participants; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only three studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk of bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPO (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91; I2 = 95%; 7 studies, 2765 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to hospital admissions (data not pooled; 14 studies, 4797 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to quality of life (data not pooled; 16 studies, 7458 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in 10 studies (6740 participants) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. This also applied to studies examining adherence to medication (nine studies, 3848 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy resulted in clinically significant improvement. Since the last update of this review in 2018, there appears to have been an increase in the number of studies seeking to address potential prescribing omissions and more interventions being delivered by multidisciplinary teams.

STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate medications/potential prescribing omissions in older people: uptake and clinical impact

INTRODUCTION

STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs, STOPP) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs, START) have gained considerable interest and traction since they were first published in 2008. This review focuses on their uptake and impact in various clinical settings.

AREAS COVERED

STOPP/START criteria, now in their third iteration, are explicit criteria designed to facilitate detection of common and clinically important PIMs and PPOs during routine medication review in any clinical setting. We examine the influence of the criteria, particularly in clinical trials that focused on their impact on clinically relevant endpoints.

EXPERT OPINION

STOPP/START criteria are widely used in several countries within Europe and beyond for medication review and audit. As a discreet intervention, the criteria have been tested in several single-center and two large-scale multi-center clinical trials. The single-center trials indicate that STOPP/START criteria reduce polypharmacy, inappropriate prescribing, ADRs (adverse drug reactions), medication cost and falls. In contrast, the SENATOR and OPERAM multicentre trials did not demonstrate significant reduction in ADRs, all-cause mortality, drug-related hospital readmissions, nor any improvement in quality-of-life. Further clinical trials are required to examine whether STOPP/START criteria as an intervention can deliver significant clinical benefit in a reproducible manner in various clinical settings.

A systematic review of randomised-controlled trials on deprescribing outcomes in older adults with polypharmacy

BACKGROUND

Mixed findings about deprescribing impact have emerged from varied study designs, interventions, outcome measures and targeting sub-categories of medications or morbidities. This systematic review controls for study design by reviewing randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) of deprescribing interventions using comprehensive medication profiles. The goal is to provide a synthesis of interventions and patient outcomes to inform healthcare providers and policy makers about deprescribing effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to (1) review RCT deprescribing studies focusing on complete medication reviews of older adults with polypharmacy across all health settings, (2) map patients' clinical and economic outcomes against intervention and implementation strategies and (3) inform research agendas based on observed benefits and best practices.

METHODS

The PRISMA framework for systematic reviews was followed. Databases used were EBSCO Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised trials.

RESULTS

Fourteen articles were included. Interventions varied in setting, preparation, use of interdisciplinary teams, validated guidelines and tools, patient-centredness and implementation strategy. Thirteen studies (92.9%) found deprescribing interventions reduced the number of drugs and/or doses taken. No studies found threats to patient safety in terms of primary outcomes including morbidity, hospitalisations, emergency room use and falls. Four of five studies identifying health quality of life as a primary outcome found significant effects associated with deprescribing. Both studies with cost as their primary outcome found significant effects as did two with cost as a secondary outcome. Studies did not systematically study how intervention components influenced deprescribing impact. To explore this gap, this review mapped studies' primary outcomes to deprescribing intervention components using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Five studies had significant, positive primary outcomes related to health-related quality of life (HRQOL), cost and/or hospitalisation, with four reporting patient-centred elements in their intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

RCT primary outcomes found deprescribing is safe and reduces drug number or dose. Five RCTs found a significant deprescribing impact on HRQOL, cost or hospitalisation. Important future research agendas include analysing (1) understudied outcomes like cost, and (2) intervention and implementation components that enhance effectiveness, such as patient-centred elements.

Reducing inappropriate polypharmacy for older patients at specialist outpatient clinics: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Polypharmacy is associated with negative clinical consequences. The efficacy of deprescribing interventions within medical specialist outpatient clinics remains unclear. Here, we reviewed the research on the effectiveness of deprescribing interventions implemented within specialist outpatient clinics for patients ≥ 60 years.

METHODS

Systematic searches of key databases were undertaken for studies published between January 1990 and October 2021. The diverse nature of the study designs made it unsuitable for pooling for meta-analysis, thus, a narrative review was conducted and presented in both text and tabular formats. The primary outcome for review was that intervention resulted in a change in medication load (either total number of medications or appropriateness of medication). Secondary outcomes were the maintenance of deprescription and clinical benefits. Methodological quality of the publications was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tools.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies with a total of 10,914 participants were included for review. These included geriatric outpatient clinics, oncology/hematology clinics, hemodialysis clinics, and designated polypharmacy/multimorbidity clinics. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported statistically significant reductions in medication load with intervention; however, all studies had a high risk of bias. The inclusion of a pharmacist in outpatient clinics aims to increase deprescribing, however, the current evidence is mainly restricted to prospective and pilot studies. The data on secondary outcomes were very limited and highly variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Specialist outpatient clinics may provide valuable settings for implementing deprescribing interventions. The addition of a multidisciplinary team including a pharmacist and the use of validated medication assessment tools appear to be enablers. Further research is warranted.

Detection tools for prediction and identification of adverse drug reactions in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tools to accurately predict and detect adverse drug reactions (ADR) in elderly patients have not been developed. We aimed to identify and evaluate reports on tools that predict and detect ADR in elderly patients (≥ 60 years). In this review, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases were searched until January 2022 using key terms "elderly," "adverse drug reaction," and "detection instruments." Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and they examined assorted interventions: STOPP/START version 1/2 (n = 10), Beers Criteria 2012 or 2015 (n = 4), Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing (STRIP) (n = 2), Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Medications (TRIM) (n = 1), Medication Risk Score (MERIS) (n = 1), Computerized alert systems (n = 1), and Norwegian General Practice-Nursing Home criteria (n = 1). The interventions affected the number of potential prescription omissions (OR, 0.50 [0.37-0.69]; p < 0.0001; four studies). No apparent reduction in the number of drug interactions within 2 months (OR, 0.84 [0.70-1.02]; p = 0.08; two studies) and mortality (OR, 0.92 [0.76-1.12]; p = 0.41; three studies) was observed. In conclusion, there is no definitive and validated assessment tool for detecting and predicting ADR in elderly patients. Thus, more research on refining existing tools or developing new ones is warranted.

Deprescribing medicines in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: the TAILOR evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Tackling problematic polypharmacy requires tailoring the use of medicines to individual needs and circumstances. This may involve stopping medicines (deprescribing) but patients and clinicians report uncertainty on how best to do this. The TAILOR medication synthesis sought to help understand how best to support deprescribing in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

OBJECTIVES

We identified two research questions: (1) what evidence exists to support the safe, effective and acceptable stopping of medication in this patient group, and (2) how, for whom and in what contexts can safe and effective tailoring of clinical decisions related to medication use work to produce desired outcomes? We thus described three objectives: (1) to undertake a robust scoping review of the literature on stopping medicines in this group to describe what is being done, where and for what effect; (2) to undertake a realist synthesis review to construct a programme theory that describes 'best practice' and helps explain the heterogeneity of deprescribing approaches; and (3) to translate findings into resources to support tailored prescribing in clinical practice.

DATA SOURCES

Experienced information specialists conducted comprehensive searches in MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) and Google Scholar (targeted searches).

REVIEW METHODS

The scoping review followed the five steps described by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for conducting a scoping review. The realist review followed the methodological and publication standards for realist reviews described by the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) group. Patient and public involvement partners ensured that our analysis retained a patient-centred focus.

RESULTS

Our scoping review identified 9528 abstracts: 8847 were removed at screening and 662 were removed at full-text review. This left 20 studies (published between 2009 and 2020) that examined the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of deprescribing in adults (aged ≥ 50 years) with polypharmacy (five or more prescribed medications) and multimorbidity (two or more conditions). Our analysis revealed that deprescribing under research conditions mapped well to expert guidance on the steps needed for good clinical practice. Our findings offer evidence-informed support to clinicians regarding the safety, clinician acceptability and potential effectiveness of clinical decision-making that demonstrates a structured approach to deprescribing decisions. Our realist review identified 2602 studies with 119 included in the final analysis. The analysis outlined 34 context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing the knowledge work of tailored prescribing under eight headings related to organisational, health-care professional and patient factors, and interventions to improve deprescribing. We conclude that robust tailored deprescribing requires attention to providing an enabling infrastructure, access to data, tailored explanations and trust.

LIMITATIONS

Strict application of our definition of multimorbidity during the scoping review may have had an impact on the relevance of the review to clinical practice. The realist review was limited by the data (evidence) available.

CONCLUSIONS

Our combined reviews recognise deprescribing as a complex intervention and provide support for the safety of structured approaches to deprescribing, but also highlight the need to integrate patient-centred and contextual factors into best practice models.

FUTURE WORK

The TAILOR study has informed new funded research tackling deprescribing in sleep management, and professional education. Further research is being developed to implement tailored prescribing into routine primary care practice.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107544 and PROSPERO CRD42018104176.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Preoperative Deprescribing for Medical Optimization of Older Adults Undergoing Surgery: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the evidence for preoperative deprescribing and its effect on postoperative outcomes in older adults undergoing surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

All available studies.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), and PubMed from inception to January 12, 2021. Settings included outpatient settings during the waiting period for surgery (ie, preoperative clinic) through to the preoperative period in the hospital. Participants who were older adults, aged ≥65 years, undergoing planned or emergency surgery with deprescribing or medication-related interventions were included for review.

RESULTS

We identified 3 different methods of deprescribing intervention delivery during the preoperative period: geriatrician-led (n = 2), interdisciplinary team-led (n = 8), and pharmacist-led (n = 6). Outcomes were related to health care utilization, patient outcomes, and medication changes; however, results were difficult to compare because of heterogeneous outcomes within the topics. Overall, results were either positive or neutral.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The evidence for deprescribing during the preoperative period for older adults undergoing surgery is weak because of the heterogeneity of intervention delivery and outcomes, inclusion of nonoperative cases in some studies, and low power. This review highlights the need for future research, which may consider the following: (1) interdisciplinary approach, (2) coordination of deprescribing efforts with primary care provider from the waiting period for surgery up to after hospital discharge, and (3) validated deprescribing criteria such as STOPP/START that is easy to implement. It is important to note that results yielded positive and neutral results, not negative ones, which should reassure clinicians to implement deprescribing for older adults during the surgical period. Additionally, policy initiatives such as integrated electronic medical records or increased reimbursement of deprescribing efforts for primary care providers and/or hospitals should be pursued to prevent adverse postoperative events for this population.

Effectiveness of Interventions to Reduce Potentially Inappropriate Medication in Older Patients: A Systematic Review

Background: Age-related multiple comorbidities cause older adults to be prone to the use of potentially inappropriate medicines (PIM) resulting in an increased risk of adverse events. Several strategies have emerged to support PIM prescription, and a huge number of interventions to reduce PIM have been proposed. This work aims to analyze the effectiveness of PIM interventions directed to older adults.

Methods: A systematic review was performed searching the literature in the MEDLINE PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane scientific databases for interventional studies that assessed the PIM interventions in older adults (≥65 years).

Results: Forty-seven articles were included, involving 52 to 124,802 patients. Various types of interventions were analyzed such as medication review, educational strategies, clinical decision support system, and organizational and multifaceted approaches. In the hospital, the most successful intervention was medication review (75.0%), while in primary care, the analysis of all included studies revealed that educational strategies were the most effective. However, the analysis of interventions that have greater evidence by its design was inconclusive.

Conclusion: The results obtained in this work suggested that PIM-setting-directed interventions should be developed to promote the wellbeing of the patients through PIM reduction. Although the data obtained suggested that medication review was the most assertive strategy to decrease the number of PIM in the hospital setting, more studies are necessary.

Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021233484], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021233484].

The effect of providing prescribing recommendations on appropriate prescribing: A cluster-randomized controlled trial in older adults in a preoperative setting

AIMS

The Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing is a method to assess patient's medication and has been incorporated into a clinical decision support system: STRIP Assistant. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of recommendations generated using STRIP Assistant on appropriate prescribing and mortality in a preoperative setting.

METHODS

This cluster-randomized controlled trial was carried out at the preoperative geriatric outpatient clinic. Residents who performed a comprehensive geriatric assessment were randomized to the control group and intervention group in a 1:1 ratio. Visiting patients aged 70 years or older on 5 or more medications were included.

INTERVENTION

prescribing recommendations were generated by a physician using STRIP Assistant and given to the resident. Control group residents performed a medication review according to usual care.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

number of medication changes made because of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), and suboptimal dosages according to the prescribing recommendations. Secondary outcome: 3-month postoperative mortality.

RESULTS

65 intervention and 59 control patients were included, attended by 34 residents. Significantly more medication changes because of PPOs and PIMs were made in the intervention group than in the control group (PPOs 26.2% vs 3.4%, odds ratio 0.04 [95% confidence interval 0.003-0.46] P < .05; PIMS 46.2% vs 15.3% odds ratio 0.14 [95% confidence interval 0.07-0.57] P < .005). There were no differences in dose adjustments or in postoperative mortality.

CONCLUSION

Prescribing recommendations generated with the help of STRIP Assistant improved appropriate prescribing in a preoperative geriatric outpatient clinic but did not affect postoperative mortality.